FOCA

03/14/2010

SECTION 1. INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS All men are by nature free and independent and havecertain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rightsand the protection of property, governments are institutedamong men, deriving their just powers from the consent of thegoverned.(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

SECTION 2. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or propertywithout due process of law nor be denied the equal protectionof the laws.

(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

This apparent right to life seems to be contradicted by the Attorney General of Illinois if she really made the claim that the Illinois Constitution contains a right to abortion (I have not yet been able to find a quote). I wonder if the right lies in one of those penumbras such as the libs like to pretend exist in the U.S. Constitution. Surely if the U.S. Constitution has penumbras which grant the liberal politician anything and everything his cold, black heart desires, shouldn't the same exist in our state constitution?

03/28/2009

The leftist demagogues require hate to advance the class warfare that occupies the central space in their agenda. The hate that Obama and his ilk can foster toward a variety of evil and undeserving portions of the population (for example: self-made successful people) is a good hate in the not quite Newspeak of this era. In fact, this type of hate (actual hate) is not considered hate, instead it is viewed as compassion.

In this brave new world "hate" has a new composition. Only in a fledgling Utopia such as our glorious Obamanation does "hate" attain so many new and diverse meanings. Here is a partial list of the Obamaspeak definitions of "hate":

The desire to have federal and local governments adhere to their respective constitutions or charters.

The act of discussing the past actions, associations, and words of President Obama or any public figure who shares his desire to "change" the greatest nation on Earth into a replication of a lesser nation.

Any acknowledgment of the value of innocent life.

Vocal opposition of forcible redistribution of wealth from the earner to the dependent voting block (funneled through various government agencies.)

Any desire to see our immigration laws enforced or a belief that immigrants who followed the legal process should not be punished for the sake of gaining favor with the victim illegal alien voting block.

Illustration of the advances of adult stem cell or umbilical cord blood stem cell research because unlike embryonic stem cell research, they show promise and also unlike embryonic stem cell research, they do not further the abortion agenda.

An honest assessment of constituent pay-off plans such as FOCA, EFCA, or Cap and Trade.

Opposition to culling the herd through "healthcare reform."

Any replaying of President Obama off "TOTUS", as an unscripted moment shines too much sunlight on the "substance" and incoherence of the man who represents "hope" to millions of drones.

The act of pointing out that the bloated and wasteful government can not be trusted with even more control over the lives of citizens.

I contend that one of the best indicators of accuracy is to have one's words referred to as "hate-filled" by an Obama supporter. This hyphenated word is meant to intimidate opposition, but instead provides affirmation given the Obammunists' definitions of the word "hate."

01/01/2009

Contrary to the perception the liberal element of this nation would like us to have, they will rarely tolerate choice. As the great Andrew Wilkow often points out, the only two rights libs seem to believe in are gay marriage and abortion... and even on abortion they don't really believe in choice. The left's assault on choice has a willing puppet in the officially fictional "Office of the President-elect." On January 20, 2009, the puppet of the anti-choice movement gets to move from his fictional office to a real office and he has already expressed a willingness to expedite the annihilation of choice.

It is certainly no secret that the elitist snob liberals have opposed choice for years when it comes to education. These people who would never trust public education with their own children try to damn the masses to indoctrination and poor quality at the hands of a lib-candidate-friendly union. Ah unions, the organizations that once served a purpose beyond political power and enriching their leadership. The unions are about to be rewarded for their political purchases by command of the new Commander In Chief when he signs the equivalent of a choice-busting nuclear missile known as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA (H.R. 800, S. 1041.))

It is interesting and illustrative that the AFL-CIO web site refers to the EFCA as "supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress". If one clicks on the tabs to find out what they mean by "bipartisan" it is discovered that out of 234 co-sponsors in the House and 45 in the Senate there are four Republicans and two Independents (Sens. Lieberman and the socialist Sanders!) Of course the AFL-CIO wouldn't say there was bipartisan support if it wasn't true. Fortunately for them and unfortunately for Americans there are Republicans such as Chris Shays of Connecticut. There is an asterisk by Shays' name which indicates that he is no longer serving in Congress so I guess there is at least one bright spot.

Let us compare the position of the Elliptical Office's occupant fresh from his (inappropriate use of .gov) web site:

Ensure freedom to unionize: Obama and Biden believe that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is a strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a bipartisan effort that makes sure workers can exercise their right to organize. They will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and Obama will sign it into law.

Does a ballot cast in private or a card signed in pub­lic better reveal a worker's true preference about whether to join a union? A private vote is the obvious answer, but organized labor has nonetheless made the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, H.R. 800) its highest legislative priority.

Apparently the Obama position is that any "harassment or intimidation" is acceptable as long as it furthers the agenda and enrichment of the big labor unions that have so graciously contributed to the liberal political cause. Eliminating private votes as a means to unionizing OBVIOUSLY exposes employees of companies as of yet un-infected by the union virus to intimidation and harassment by the union's thugs. The libs use the word "choice" in their legislative attacks on choice as a way to portray their assault as a noble one... sort of like the way the AFL-CIO uses the word "bipartisan."

Another horrifying example of the libiots' use of the word "choice" to mask an anti-choice (and dangerous but don't tell the squishy Republican reformers otherwise they'll run from it like frightened children being attacked by the dreaded single issue monster) legislation known as the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA (H.R. 1964, S. 1173.)) From the National Right To Life:

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." -- Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

This statement is consistent with Barack "Born Alive, Let Them Die" Obama's reputation as possibly the most pro-abortion candidate to ever run for the highest office in the land. After all, this is the man who said if his daughters made a mistake he "wouldn't want them punished with a baby."

Why is FOCA an assault on choice? It will trample the rights of those in a position to perform abortions but have the decency to find the practice abhorrent. (Did I just type that? Darn, I am really risking exposing myself as a pro-lifer and apparently by the standards of the Republican reformer, risk alienating potential future votes for Republican candidates. Oh, well, I'll risk it.)

All sides in the abortion fight agree, if FOCA were to pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by a pro-abortion President, it would, among other effects, provide for taxpayer-funded abortion on demand even late in pregnancy, grant abortionists immunity from legal action, allow abortionists the discretion to perform abortions on minors without notifying a parent, and deny health care workers the right to refuse to make abortion referrals as a matter of conscience.

"The legislation (FOCA) would invalidate existing and future laws that interfere with or discriminate against the exercise of the rights protected . It also would provide an individual aggrieved by a violation of the act a private right of civil action in order to obtain appropriate relie f" - Planned Parenthood website.

"As a general matter, if FOCA were enacted, it would wipe out a very large number of existing state laws on abortion, substantially impede the ability of states to regulate abortion, and override nearly 40 years of jurisprudential experience on the subject of abortion." - USCCB Memorandum on FOCA

Choice and individual rights seem to be slipping away as the influence of liberals grow and even permeates the Republican Party. The FFT (Feckless Fifty Two percent) have decided to hand the keys over to the worst president in U.S. history (if the libiots can pretend he is already the best, I can contend he is already the worst, especially since his past associations and actions disqualify him as being a good person.) Will there be enough outraged voices to badger our elected "representation" to oppose the assaults on choice? I doubt it but in honor of the renowned occupant of the Elliptical Office, one can hope.